Rules on Parodies?
The only thing I find that is truly odd is is that with the exception of MDawg every other one has been permanently banned. I certainly hope there wasn't bias on behalf of the monitors who may have feared that their diatribes might have negative effects on all other baccarat players.
For ever question of his you answer he will ask two more. He does this at every forum. He has one goal when he posts and I think you can figure what that is.
Quote: vegasIf you ignore Coachbelly he will go away.
...I'm just getting started.
He may have hit 2 legit Royals, 1 3 way action and 2 hand pays(I don't know if they were 4k or not since I did not pay all that much attention to the hand pays ("equivalents") because that was irrelevant. When he first made the claim(on this very forum) he was called out on it(mostly by me) I made it very clear, as did he, it was 5 single line Royals PERIOD. The conversation went on for a while here alone and then on another forum multiple times talk to his guns that it wasn't fact FIVE single line Royals in 24 hours and still lost. He had more than enough time to correct/retract his statement. But instead, he tried to back up his claims with a big bet bluff (5k IIRC) I wanted very badly to take that bet, however, I wouldn't have been willing to accept his son's word on the matter and I wouldn't have been willing to accept THEIR W2G's even if they were able to produce them since those are easily faked.Quote: coachbellyMy recollection is that the son confirmed that he hit 5 single-line royal "equivalents" in a 24-hour period, either actual royals or other 4000 credit winners (TDB 4Aw/k, etc).
After a long period of time elapsed, the father unable to remember the exact hands his son hit, gave an abridged version of the sequence in order to illustrate his point that unusual winning events do happen.
Rather than focusing on the father's point about unusual winning events, several responders unfortunately "teamed up" in an effort to have the thread deteriorate into an exercise in name-calling and harassment.
Do you disagree?
That thread may have very well turned into a bash AM thread, that would be nothing new. What would you expect when a guy who claims professional honesty and truthfulness as an award-winning reputable reporter/ journalist keeps coming up with extraordinarily outrageous claims and other cockamamie BS, especially, when we have one example a fake news reported?
Quote: AxelWolfThat thread may have very well turned into a bash AM thread, that would be nothing new. What would you expect when a guy who claims professional honesty and truthfulness as an award-winning reputable reporter/ journalist keeps coming up with extraordinarily outrageous claims and other cockamamie BS, especially, when we have one example a fake news reported?
I've seen how you and your crew behave at VCT...I may have expected some latitude back then, but I don't have any positive expectations from your group anymore.
As I wrote above, the father gave an honest abridged recollection of his son's winning sequence, his point being that unusual winning events do happen.
You and your "team" ignored that point, instead you harassed him because he didn't have an exact recollection of the hands that his son hit, as he was some distance away when the royal-equivalent winners appeared.
You can rationalize your cruelty all you want, but it's not something that I would have expected from adults.
The incident took place several years ago, your friends were still calling AM names last week.
If I go way too far, as in "I won 34 sports bets in a row," then I'm really misrepresenting reality to make a point.
If you go back and read the old posts, I was relatively gentle with the person making some of these claims. For the Yo's claim, my conclusion, stated publicly, was that I gave his observations credence and suggested he had stumbled into a scenario where loaded dice had been accidentally inserted into the game. So cruelty was certainly not on my agenda. Nobody bought into my suggestion, which was weird because it was the Ockham's Razor obvious conclusion, to me.
It's gambling. Unusual things can happen. But reporting 34 wins in a row when the reality was 17 -- that kind of thing needs to be called out. That's not precise. You don't invent numbers to bolster an argument.
Quote: redietzYou don't invent numbers to bolster an argument.
Regarding his son's winning sequence, he didn't invent numbers.
The results he recalled were royal-equivalent wins, he wasn't lying.
I have witnessed a few 4000-credit winning AAAA2 in TDB, and commented "that's the same as a royal."
I wasn't lying.
If I later told someone else that their mother hit a royal, when it was in fact TDB AAAA2, I wouldn't be lying either.
And, I don't recall you harassing AM about this...I don't recall you being a name-caller at all.
You should stop talking about it until you go back and read the original thread / post here and exactly what he said and everything he said after that.Quote: coachbellyRegarding his son's winning sequence, he didn't invent numbers.
The results he recalled were royal-equivalent wins, he wasn't lying.
I have witnessed a few 4000-credit winning AAAA2 in TDB, and commented "that's the same as a royal."
I wasn't lying.
If I later told someone else that their mother hit a royal, when it was in fact TDB AAAA2, I wouldn't be lying either.
And, I don't recall you harassing AM about this...I don't recall you being a name-caller at all.
At some point it becomes an outright lie, especially when you're willing to put your reputation on it and make a big bet bluff. The subject was brought up multiple times and not once did he ever say it's possible that it was less than 5 or any other combination. He was as certain about it being 5 Royals as you are certain the sun will rise. And as certain as he has been about witnessing 18 yo's in a row. It was specifically stated there is no funny games involved or anything like that just straight-up five Royals on single line video poker. One of the hit's wasn't even on a standard video poker.
He was encouraged to confirm with his son from the beginning. At one point he even said he was going to have his son come on VCT and back his claims up. His son was a member of that forum, and even posted somewhere in between the conversation. He obviously had the conversation with his son where his son set him straight. AM, assumed we would never find out the truth since it would be unlikely a son would out his father, but rather, just avoid the question and not say anything. What he didn't anticipate is his son getting furious at him for not paying him some money he owed, all the while out in the casinos gambling.
Oh, and let's not forget, he seemed to have a perfect memory of everything else that happened that night.
BTW, his son seems like a very logical, truthful, straightforward guy I think even argued with his father about the value of Free-Play and seems to have an understanding of math and aspects of advantage play.
Just for s**** and giggles let's assume you are correct and it was an innocent mistake the entire time. Do you believe AM actually witnessed 18 YO's, in a row?
Quote: HullabalooHere's the thread:
https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/showthread.php?4941-Question-for-Slapinfunk
Nice trip down memory lane. AM & CB at their finest.
Required reading for anyone who questions what CB is all about.
Credit to CB, he can take the heat, the other guy takes his ball and runs when pressured with the truth.
But he can’t stay away so he shows back up as a sock occasionally. Probably after hitting rock bottom financially or another divorce.
Quote: DeMangoStill thinking 18 Yo’s in a row is the all time whopper on this site.
Hard to top that one. Add in how hard and long he defended it and you have a GOAT.
Quote: AxelWolfYou should stop talking about it until you go back and read the original thread
I used the link provided by Hullabaloo and read the VCT thread.
It's just as I recalled, harassment and cruelty displayed by Axel and his crew.
AM wasn't being dishonest, he presented an anecdote to demonstrate that a player can have an unusual amount of big wins over a session and still end up with a loss for that session.
Quote: AxelWolfHe obviously had the conversation with his son where his son set him straight. AM, assumed we would never find out the truth since it would be unlikely a son would out his father, but rather, just avoid the question and not say anything.
The statement above is an outright fabrication for the purposes of character assassination.
AM started the VCT thread, so that his son could confirm the details of the night in question.
The son did not confirm the father's recollection, so the accusation that they had previously conspired to suppress the truth is false and shameful.
The son's final thoughts on the matter were truthful and fair...the father was not being deceptive or dishonest...
"Hey may have gotten details crossed, but the general large figure wins is accurate. "
Again, you need to read what was said here on the Forum. He was not trying to indicate there were "general big wins". The conversation started with someone asking if it was possible two hit to Royals in one day. AM chimed in and said something along the lines of... of course, it is, that's not that unusual, my son hit 5 in one day. It had nothing to do with a bunch of big wins, that wasn't the point he was trying to get across. The point where he was trying to make was that you could get five of the same unlikely hands all strung together and in fact his son had done it.Quote: coachbellyI used the link provided by Hullabaloo and read the VCT thread.
It's just as I recalled, harassment and cruelty displayed by Axel and his crew.
AM wasn't being dishonest, he presented an anecdote to demonstrate that a player can have an unusual amount of big wins over a session and still end up with a loss for that session.
The statement above is an outright fabrication for the purposes of character assassination.
AM started the VCT thread, so that his son could confirm the details of the night in question.
The son did not confirm the father's recollection, so the accusation that they had previously conspired to suppress the truth is false and shameful.
The son's final thoughts on the matter were truthful and fair...the father was not being deceptive or dishonest...
"Hey may have gotten details crossed, but the general large figure wins is accurate. "
It's only after he was proven wrong you guys want to make it into something else.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was ONE legitimate single line Royal, NOT FIVE that's a pretty big exaggeration.
He was playing a lot of $10 denominations so of course you can get some big wins and still lose(On the $10 denominations there wasn't even really any big wins). What's so unusual about that? And by the way, from those pictures posted he didn't even get paid a bonus for Four Aces with a kicker. It sounds like he was doing a s*** ton of playing over the course of 24 hours on stuff like triple action and multi-line. He probably didn't run unusually good and was more likely than not supposed to lose. Looking at it closer it makes what he said even more ignorant.
He got some details crossed? What's the biggest joke I've ever heard entire details of the story was f****** crossed. Yet, he would have us believe he witnessed 18 YO's in a row.
Quote: AxelWolfAgain, you need to read what was said here on the Forum. He was not trying to indicate there were "general big wins". The conversation started with someone asking if it was possible to hit to Royals in one day. AM chimed in and said something along the lines of... of course, it is, that's not that unusual, my son hit 5 in one day. It had nothing to do with a bunch of big wins, that wasn't the point he was trying to get across. The point where he was trying to make was that you could get five of the same unlikely hands all strung together and in fact his son had done it. It's only after he was proven wrong you guys want to make it into something else.
I hear ya, but I'm not accepting your defense.
I found a link to the original WOV thread...you actually provided the link in the VCT thread.
Here's the first post that popped out at me on the page when I clicked onto the link...
Quote: mickeycrimmAxel wasnt challenging 5 royals in 24 hours. He was challenging hitting 5 royals in 24 hours but coming up a loser.
Now I haven't read the entire WOV thread, but it looks like MC did, and he expressed the same impression that I got from the VCT thread.
I don't need to defend anything here, I'm not the one that made up complete b******* and stood my ground.Quote: coachbellyI hear ya, but I'm not accepting your defense.
I found a link to the original WOV thread...you actually provided the link in the VCT thread.
Here's the first post that popped out at me on the page when I clicked onto the link...
Now I haven't read the entire WOV thread, but it looks like MC did, and he expressed the same impression that I got from the VCT thread.
I think I originally said I think hitting five single line Royals in one day was technically possible, but not hitting 5 AND still losing. I still made it very clear I didn't even believe the 5 single line Royals in one day. Obviously I know it's possible but given it was AM who made the claim I knew it was absolutely impossible to have had happened the way he presented it.
Quote: HullabalooHere's the thread:
https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/showthread.php?4941-Question-for-Slapinfunk
Hullabaloo you owe me a hour of my life back after I read that thread lol.
Quote: AxelWolfI don't need to defend anything here.
I don't know you, but I know that you try to be funny, and you think that you're funny.
But you weren't funny during that episode, and the way you've treated Alan since then isn't funny, it's shameful, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
I suspect that you are and won't admit it, but that's why you're still defending yourself 5+ years later.
August 6th, 2014 at 6:58:16 AM
Quote: AxelWolfI respect Alan but ....
Quote: coachbelly<snip>I see that you mentioned Blackjack above...is Blackjack beatable if an optimal strategy is used?
<snip>
Regarding Baccarat, which has been declared unbeatable by several contributors....
Do you know how many hands played are required such that the likelihood of MDawg being ahead is far less than 1%?<snip>
coachbelly,
Blackjack is well-known to be beatable via card-counting as well as several other AP moves.
As for your Baccarat question, I'll give it a shot.
According to the WoO (see https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/house-edge/), the House Edge and Standard Deviation of the Banker bet at Baccarat are 1.06% and 0.93. What is the chance of being even or ahead after, say, 100 hands (roughly 1.25 hours) of flat-betting?
For Banker, after 100 hands the expectation is 100*(-0.0106) = -1.06 units. So, to be even or ahead, the better would have to run at least 1.06 units above expectation. The total S.D. for these wagers is sqrt(100)*0.93 = 10*0.93 = 9.3 units. Thus, to be even or ahead means that the bettor must be at least 1.06/9.3 = 0.11... Standard Deviations above the expectation: in other terminology, the z-score for this bettor is +0.11...
If we consult a Complimentary Cumulative probability table (for example, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_normal_table), we get a probability of 0.45620. This means that the bettor has a 45.6% of being even or ahead. That's actually very likely.
How about 10,000 hands (say 125 hours of play)? Now the expectation (or EV, as it's usually called) is 10,000*(-0.0106) = -106 units, and the total S.D. for these wagers is sqrt(10,000)*0.93 = 100*0.93 = 93 units. Thus, to be even or ahead the bettor must have a z-score of 106/93 = 1.14... From the CCP table, this probability is 0.12714, or slightly better than one in eight.
How about 1,000,000 hands (say 12,500 hours of play, or 6 years as a full-time job)? Now the EV is 1,000,000*(-0.0106) = -10,600 units, and the total S.D. for these wagers is sqrt(1,000,000)*0.93 = 1,000*0.93 = 930 units. Thus, to be even or ahead the bettor must have a z-score of 10,600/930 = 11.4... From the CCP table (for z = +11), this probability is 1.91066E-28... he'd have a better chance at Powerball.
Hope this helps!
Dog Hand
Quote: DogHandcoachbelly,
Blackjack is well-known to be beatable via card-counting as well as several other AP moves.
As for your Baccarat question, I'll give it a shot.
According to the WoO (see https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/house-edge/), the House Edge and Standard Deviation of the Banker bet at Baccarat are 1.06% and 0.93. What is the chance of being even or ahead after, say, 100 hands (roughly 1.25 hours) of flat-betting?
For Banker, after 100 hands the expectation is 100*(-0.0106) = -1.06 units. So, to be even or ahead, the better would have to run at least 1.06 units above expectation. The total S.D. for these wagers is sqrt(100)*0.93 = 10*0.93 = 9.3 units. Thus, to be even or ahead means that the bettor must be at least 1.06/9.3 = 0.11... Standard Deviations above the expectation: in other terminology, the z-score for this bettor is +0.11...
If we consult a Complimentary Cumulative probability table (for example, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_normal_table), we get a probability of 0.45620. This means that the bettor has a 45.6% of being even or ahead. That's actually very likely.
How about 10,000 hands (say 125 hours of play)? Now the expectation (or EV, as it's usually called) is 10,000*(-0.0106) = -106 units, and the total S.D. for these wagers is sqrt(10,000)*0.93 = 100*0.93 = 93 units. Thus, to be even or ahead the bettor must have a z-score of 106/93 = 1.14... From the CCP table, this probability is 0.12714, or slightly better than one in eight.
How about 1,000,000 hands (say 12,500 hours of play, or 6 years as a full-time job)? Now the EV is 1,000,000*(-0.0106) = -10,600 units, and the total S.D. for these wagers is sqrt(1,000,000)*0.93 = 1,000*0.93 = 930 units. Thus, to be even or ahead the bettor must have a z-score of 10,600/930 = 11.4... From the CCP table (for z = +11), this probability is 1.91066E-28... he'd have a better chance at Powerball.
Hope this helps!
Dog Hand
But he quits when he is ahead. All the math you posted is worthless when you play this way and can also read the shoes.
But nice attempt at reality.
Quote: DogHandWhat is the chance of being even or ahead after, say, 100 hands (roughly 1.25 hours) of flat-betting?
I think the operative condition here is "flat betting"
Do the chances of being ahead increase if the bet is greater on the hands that win?
If the table min is X, what will the results be if the bet is 2X on 80% of the winning hands?
Quote: BozBut he quits when he is ahead.
Good point.
What's the probability of being ahead at some point in a 100-hand session? 1000 hand session?...etc.
I recall that Mission once addressed this for VP, and the probability was 70% or so.
But hey....if I'm wrong on the 70% figure, it doesn't mean that I'm lying, deceptive, dishonest, or a shyster...OK?
Quote: coachbellyhow many hands played are required such that the likelihood of MDawg being ahead is far less than 1%?
Quote: DogHandHope this helps!
So the number of hands played required, so that the likelihood of MDawg being ahead far less than 1%, is between 10,000 and 1,000,000?
Can you help more and narrow it down...how many hands for a 1% probability?
I'm wondering if it's realistically possible to play that many hands.
MDawg seems to be playing less than one shoe per day.
Quote: coachbellyGood point.
What's the probability of being ahead at some point in a 100-hand session? 1000 hand session?...etc.
I recall that Mission once addressed this for VP, and the probability was 70% or so.
But hey....if I'm wrong on the 70% figure, it doesn't mean that I'm lying, deceptive, dishonest, or a shyster...OK?
No it’s not a good point, and it’s selective editing on your part.
Face it, you have an agenda.
Really, you have an agenda
Even I see that
Does anyone else
Do you?
Yes or No?
At least the site is getting more activity than it has in a while.
So all is good and the naysayers have something to talk about.
Quote: coachbellyI think the operative condition here is "flat betting"
Do the chances of being ahead increase if the bet is greater on the hands that win?
If the table min is X, what will the results be if the bet is 2X on 80% of the winning hands?
Mind blown.
Quote: Bozyou have an agenda
Even I see that
Quote: BozDo you?
Yes or No?
I can answer yes or no to whatever agenda you see.
What's the agenda that even you can see?
AM wants to be held to a higher standard of believability with his journalistic reporter ethics and integrity. He mention his many achievements and reporter status/ethics/integrity many times, especially, when defending himself. I would not be surprised if he brought it up during this debate as well.Quote: coachbellyI don't know you, but I know that you try to be funny, and you think that you're funny.
But you weren't funny during that episode, and the way you've treated Alan since then isn't funny, it's shameful, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
I suspect that you are and won't admit it, but that's why you're still defending yourself 5+ years later.
August 6th, 2014 at 6:58:16 AM
So when he reports something as 100% fact while going so far as to make a bet that he can prove it then he should be raked over the coals when he's not even close to what his claim was. Especially when he was related to and then communication directly with the source. As I said before, he had ample opportunity and time on multiple occasions to confirm or simply say I might have been mistaken the number of Royals hit. But no, he stood his ground and even doubled down. I have to go back and look but I wouldn't be surprised if he put me on blast or even calling him out on it in the first place so he got it back. Don't act as if AM is some poor innocent guy who got unfairly raked over the coals. Especially when he likes to play little word games in order to save an out for himself later and someone comes up with the proof. He's done this a number of times so in my opinion It was some well deserved AM basing.
P.S. You still never answered my question if you believe AM actually witnessed 18 YO's in a row up until the truth came out about the 5 single line Royals he was just as certain about the 5 Royals as he was about the 18 YO's in a row.
Quote: AxelWolfhe had ample opportunity and time on multiple occasions to confirm or simply say I might have been mistaken the number of Royals hit.
He started a thread on VCT to confirm his recollection, transparently got a first-hand account from the son, and then repeatedly admitted that he was mistaken.
However long that took, it was apparently too long for you, because you are still harping on about it 5+ years later.
But that's a reflection on you...not him.
You don't know what opportunity he had to confirm his recollection, you don't know whether or not he was in contact with his son while you stewed over it.
You're making that up, just like you made this up...
Quote: AxelWolfHe obviously had the conversation with his son where his son set him straight. AM, assumed we would never find out the truth since it would be unlikely a son would out his father, but rather, just avoid the question and not say anything.
Reading the thread, it's apparent that he didn't have any conversation with his son on the matter until the thread.
Your accusation that he was covering up the truth is a malicious fabrication...it's nothing more than a fantasy that you created and then presented as truth.
Quote: coachbellySo the number of hands played required, so that the likelihood of MDawg being ahead far less than 1%, is between 10,000 and 1,000,000?
Can you help more and narrow it down...how many hands for a 1% probability?
I'm wondering if it's realistically possible to play that many hands.
MDawg seems to be playing less than one shoe per day.
coachbelly,
A 1% probability corresponds to a z-score of about 2.33. If we let "n" be the number of hands, we can solve for n:
z = (EV*n)/(SD*sqrt(n))
2.33 = (0.0106*n)/(0.93*sqrt(n))
So n = (2.33*0.93/0.0106)^2 = 18,341.6... hands. With about 80 hands per shoe, that's a bit under 230 shoes. In terms of hours, at 100 rounds per hour, that's 183.5 hours, or one month of full-time (40 hours per week) play.
Hope this helps!
Dog Hand
Quote: DogHandafter 100 hands we get a probability of 0.45620. This means that the bettor has a 45.6% of being even or ahead.
Quote: DogHandHow about 10,000 hands (say 125 hours of play)? From the CCP table, this probability is 0.12714, or slightly better than one in eight.
Quote: DogHandA 1% probability corresponds to a z-score of about 2.33. If we let "n" be the number of hands, we can solve for n:
n = (2.33*0.93/0.0106)^2 = 18,341.6... hands. With about 80 hands per shoe, that's a bit under 230 shoes. In terms of hours, at 100 rounds per hour, that's 183.5 hours, or one month of full-time (40 hours per week) play.
Just to be clear, the player has a 45.62% chance of being ahead after 100 hands
a 12.714% chance of being ahead after 10,000 hands
and a 1% chance of being ahead after 18,341.6 hands.
So the probability drops 32 points for the 9900 hands between 100 & 10,000 ?
And it drops 11 points for the 8342 hands between 10,000 & 18,342 ?
Can you explain to a layman why the probabilities are skewed that way?
Quote: coachbellyJust to be clear, the player has a 45.62% chance of being ahead after 100 hands
a 12.714% chance of being ahead after 10,000 hands
and a 1% chance of being ahead after 18,341.6 hands.
So the probability drops 32 points for the 9900 hands between 100 & 10,000 ?
And it drops 11 points for the 8342 hands between 10,000 & 18,342 ?
Can you explain to a layman why the probabilities are skewed that way?
I'll let a better math guy answer for you, but the odds are even LESS LIKELY than presented. DogHand has not included tipping, which is always a 'loss'. MDawg has mentioned a few times that he does tip.
Quote: PokerGrinderHullabaloo you owe me a hour of my life back after I read that thread lol.
You should know by now that once you start down the rabbit hole you'll never escape.
Quote: SOOPOOI'll let a better math guy answer for you, but the odds are even LESS LIKELY than presented. DogHand has not included tipping, which is always a 'loss'. MDawg has mentioned a few times that he does tip.
Slow your IV, Doc...so far we're only talking about flat-betting on Banker here.
I haven't asked Dog to consider Dawg's play yet.
Quote: coachbellyJust to be clear, the player has a 45.62% chance of being ahead after 100 hands
a 12.714% chance of being ahead after 10,000 hands
and a 1% chance of being ahead after 18,341.6 hands.
So the probability drops 32 points for the 9900 hands between 100 & 10,000 ?
And it drops 11 points for the 8342 hands between 10,000 & 18,342 ?
Can you explain to a layman why the probabilities are skewed that way?
coachbelly,
This phenomenon is a natural result of the fact that the Complimentary Cumulative probability asymptotically approaches 0 as the z-score approaches infinity. For more details, see for example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_normal_table
Hope this helps!
Dog Hand
Quote: DogHandHope this helps!
It does help! thank your your patient and objective replies.
I understand that it would take an infinite number of hands played to mitigate that last 1% probability of being ahead.
Is there a mathematical model to examine a playing strategy other than flat-betting on Banker?
Unless you're him, how would you know if he had a conversation with his Son? Even if he did we would have to count on his recollection as being accurate, so far it seems to be just the opposite of that. It seems more likely than not that he would have had this conversation with his son and it went down similar to what I described. If not, why didn't he just simply ask his son and Report the facts before he got outed.? Coincidentally it was around the time that corresponding to his son's outrage. And again, don't forget his son was a member of that very forum and participating from time to time in between all this. If he didn't in fact ask his son it's only because he himself knew it was a very very unlikely to have been true.Quote: coachbellyHe started a thread on VCT to confirm his recollection, transparently got a first-hand account from the son, and then repeatedly admitted that he was mistaken.
However long that took, it was apparently too long for you, because you are still harping on about it 5+ years later.
But that's a reflection on you...not him.
You don't know what opportunity he had to confirm his recollection, you don't know whether or not he was in contact with his son while you stewed over it.
You're making that up, just like you made this up...
Reading the thread, it's apparent that he didn't have any conversation with his son on the matter until the thread.
Your accusation that he was covering up the truth is a malicious fabrication...it's nothing more than a fantasy that you created and then presented as truth.
We're talking about a guy that claims to have witnessed 18 yo's in a row another strange stuff. And now, if in fact this new alias is him(and many believe it is for good reason) he's suddenly reporting to have witnessed 10 to 12 super times pay multipliers in a row(15 to 1 shot= many trillions to one).
So why don't we both just stop speculating and go with the facts. He made an unlikely claim and was question about it multiple times over a long period of time, he doubled and tripled down the claim even going so far as to proposing some lopsided bet while swearing up and down it was true. The 5 single line Royals claim he made was clear and precise. The reason he made the claim is clear. There was lots of back and forth regarding his claim and he stood strong defending his claimed as the truth. His claim wasn't true, NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING TRUE. IT WAS ONE, NOT 5 legitimate Royals on single line(excuse me if it happened to be two and I miss something).
Quote: AxelWolfUnless you're him, how would you know if he had a conversation with his Son?
Good point Captain Morgan, how did you know?
Quote: AxelWolfHe obviously had the conversation with his son where his son set him straight.
So now you've resorted to some kind of attempt at a personal insult regarding the fact that I have a drank too much Captain Morgan in the past?Quote: coachbellyGood point Captain Morgan, how did you know?
Interesting, I can only draw one conclusion from that.
Quote: AxelWolfSo now you've resorted to some kind of attempt at a personal insult regarding the fact that I have a drank too much Captain Morgan in the past?
Nice deflection...but Captain notwithstanding, how did you know?
Quote: AxelWolfUnless you're him, how would you know if he had a conversation with his Son?
And, what's your conclusion?...the one that you claimed that you could draw...
Quote: AxelWolfI can only draw one conclusion from that.
Quote: coachbellyGood point Captain Morgan, how did you know?
Trolling. 3 days for the insult.
I wasn't defecting. If I'm not mistaking I said it was likely/ reasonable to believe that was the case given how everything went down.Quote: coachbellyNice deflection...but Captain notwithstanding, how did you know?
And, what's your conclusion?...the one that you claimed that you could draw...
Either way, it certainly seems reasonable that within that entire amount of time given the circumstances that he would. If he didn't, I wonder why not? It's reasonable for me to believe that he knew it wasn't true. And if he did, I wonder why he didn't set the record straight. Especially, given his profession.
1) The whole thing where a certain poster said I wasn't me. AM volunteered to verify I was me (that redietz was the R.E.Dietz in some sports weeklies and who had won contests and worked briefly for Billy Walters). I put together a package of articles, columns from Playbook, a Humanist piece I had published, Op Eds, some with my smiling face, and so on, and then he wouldn't open, or even pick up, the package of articles.
2) The thing where he decided blackjack players couldn't count two tables simultaneously and published blurry photos to prove it. So me, who knows zip about blackjack, went and measured distances at various adjacent tables and tested acuity at those distances to see if it could be done. Bulletin: It can.
3) I had PM'ed him a link to when I won 25K in SB bets by finishing first in a season-long contest. He suggested I post it. I declined. Later, when a doofus said I was making it up, AM refused to shoot him down. Crickets.
That was no way for a journalist to conduct himself.
I have sympathy, but you're all digging up 5+ year grudges from 3 different forums worth of chatter about a member who was nuked several years ago and it's all second hand or worse at this point. Nobody is changing anybody's mind, and it was bad enough the first time around.
Let's move on, please, and leave flogged horses in their graves.
Thanks.
Quote: MDawgOnce Axel decides that something has happened a certain way, or is a certain thing, he'll keep repeating it and won't let go, even in the wake of others' having already decided that it happened a different way, or was a different thing.
Why did this need to be said, especially after I asked nicely for us to move on? You're extending a petty squabble with a petty post. You must have something better to do in Vegas on a Friday night.
Moving on at your request.Quote: beachbumbabsGuys.
I have sympathy, but you're all digging up 5+ year grudges from 3 different forums worth of chatter about a member who was nuked several years ago and it's all second hand or worse at this point. Nobody is changing anybody's mind, and it was bad enough the first time around.
Let's move on, please, and leave flogged horses in their graves.
Thanks.
Quote: beachbumbabsGuys.
I have sympathy, but you're all digging up 5+ year grudges from 3 different forums worth of chatter about a member who was nuked several years ago and it's all second hand or worse at this point. Nobody is changing anybody's mind, and it was bad enough the first time around.
Let's move on, please, and leave flogged horses in their graves.
Thanks.
Babs, I didn't know you were up on that archeology! You poor soul.
Moving on, with pleasure, although...I did learn a helluva lot from the "counting two tables" topic.
Was it she wasn't really a black woman working at Walgreen's in Florida or was it she was a former banned member? I remember something about her eating all the cookies, but not much more.Quote: SOOPOOFor a while I made parody posts in regards to Nathan, who was obviously a fraud and was later proven as such. I received no suspension. I did receive accolades.
